Mx docs stakingv4 updates #1047
Conversation
…docs-stakingv4-updates
staking providers
mariusmihaic
left a comment
mariusmihaic
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Whole text needs to be rephrased and grammatically corrected by running it through a rephrasing app, like chatGPT
- We could write more straight-forward user friendly/helpful information instead of using lots of pompous words to describe a simple process, which actually describes nothing meaningful
- Some technical debt information proposed
| # **1. Introduction** | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## What is MultiversX staking? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[general]
- I suggest you run this whole text through chatGPT or any rephrasing tool available out there and rephrase it.
- Spaces/indentations seem wrong
- Name of the png files are not consistent with existing ones
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Will rewrite it as suggested
- What are the rules for spaces/indentations?
- Renamed all the .png files as seen in the existing examples using all lower case and hyphen instead of spaces.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- 120 max characters per line before new line. Your lines are randomly interrupted
|
|
||
| ### Security | ||
|
|
||
| Ensured by our Auction List mechanism - that randomly selects 320 nodes, 80 nodes from each shard at every epoch start - the nodes are shuffled randomly |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- Those numbers are ideal, although can be used as referenced...
- I personally don't understand how auction list has anything to do with security, but that's just my opinion. If you want to keep it for marketing purposes, be it, not my call. cc @schimih
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can use it in Security but let's see if @schimih agrees.
|
|
||
| The APR of a Staking Provider is influenced by a few factors. The most important is how their Node NQT is aligned with the Network NQT. That means, the closer your Node NQT is to the Network NQT the better your APR. | ||
|
|
||
| An easy way to calculate this is to divide the total amount of EGLD locked in your Staking Provider contract by the number of nodes and compare it to the Network NQT. If your Staking Provider has a very high NQT compare to the Network, then your APR will be lower because the proportion of EGLD per node is not optimized. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Again, technically incorrect, can stay as it is though for marketing if that's what we want....
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This somehow suggests that it's wrong to have lots of egld staked...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure why it is understood like that, we could ask @schimih or @iulianpascalau to give us their views as well.
| As a side note, even if the Network NQT changes in the 4 waiting Epochs the already selected nodes will still participate in the consensus even if they would presumably have lower Node NQT after the aforementioned 4 epochs in the Waiting List. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| ## Waiting Status |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What is the difference between ## Waiting List & ## Waiting Status? they are the same thing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rewrote this section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- You didn't re-write the text.
- Waiting list & Waiting status are the same thing explained twice, why do we need both?
|
|
||
| ## Automatic Node Qualification | ||
|
|
||
| This mechanism automatically distributes a Staking Provider's total top-up amount to the Validator Nodes they own. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why do we need this chapter? Feels like it adds a lot of confusion. Cand be interpreted as if the system is "playing" with your own stake.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I rewrote it a bit, if you still think it is not bringing value we can remove it.
I added it for full transparency, perhaps a total rework of the concept description would help?
|
|
||
| ## Top-up Balancing | ||
|
|
||
| The point of this mechanism is to show Staking Providers their Nodes' status based on the Network NQT allowing them to adjust their number of nodes or the amount of top-up, either manually or automatically. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where is this mechanism showed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Rewrote this section a bit, but as with the Automatic Node Qualification we could remove it entirely if it does not bring any usefulness.
|
|
||
| # **Staking V4** | ||
|
|
||
| Staking phase 4 will unfold in three consecutive steps, each corresponding to a specific epoch. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please revert back these deleted lines, otherwise the next chapters don't have a "seamless logic" continuation.
I understand that the document was written as in "past", for the "future" unfolding events and now it is already in the "past". Simply rephrase as those events have already happened, e.g.:
from : "In the first step, we will completely" -> "In the first step, we have completely removed"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reverted the lines as it was an error they were kept deleted
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We still could've re-wrote the verbs to past tense
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can stay as it is, though, it's fine
mariusmihaic
left a comment
mariusmihaic
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- 80% of previous comments were not addressed
- Clarity, conciseness & grammatical errors + chatGpt rephrasing still not done
Description of the pull request (what is new / what has changed)
Did you test the changes locally ?
Which category (categories) does this pull request belong to?